# Predestination and Freewill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939 "2003-11-02T03:29:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/21 "2003-11-03T17:46:53Z")
Yeah, the whole free-will/predestination thing gives me the willies, so, whatever **Bryan Ekers** does, I do the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/22 "2003-11-04T01:15:19Z")
I have to agree with Apos. The concept of free will is really hard to pin down. We have some intuitive sense of making a free choice but I can’t think of any way of defining it intellectually. Before we can discuss whether free will exists we need to know what on earth it means. Does anyone know how philosophy textbooks define it? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/23 "2003-11-04T03:11:36Z")
> [@](#): > > If there is a willer of the willed it is not freely willed. Nonsense. This statement has precisely nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that if the choice is determined by something not under my control: i.e. not determined by me, then it’s not my choice at all. We are talking about the ACTUAL process of “determining” here. Either that process is ruled by causal chain from the sort of being I am to what I choose in a given situation, or the choice is not ultimately connected to me. That’s the same utterly regardless of whether someone created me so that I would, causally, choose a particular way. Just because someone decided how I would choose does not mean that I am not the one carrying out the act of choosing. I am, and it is most certainly my choice, because I made it. > [@](#): > > A choice is being made in the regular sense of the word choice, but there’s no “one” making the choice. There’s no entity present. Why not? There is an entity. It can recognize a number of different options. It can then choose among them, using whatever criteria it has concerning those sorts of choices. How is this different than what we do when we make a choice? I’m not saying that there might not be a difference: but if you think there is, WHAT IS IT? > [@](#): > > It is a completely unfounded assumption that the physical brain makes choices. Especially if it is also an unfounded assumption that there is a “you” who makes choices. > > We have no proof that thoughts cause actions or actions cause thoughts. Actually, as I said, we have pretty good reason to believe that the experience of thoughts DON’T cause actions, as well as pretty strong evidence that brain activty, whether it has any connection to thoughts at all, does cause action. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/24 "2003-11-04T05:24:57Z")
Apos > [@](#): > > Nonsense. This statement has precisely nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that if the choice is determined by something not under my control: i.e. not determined by me, then it’s not my choice at all. My point was the ‘me’ cannot be taken for granted, other wise it’s trivial. Prerequisite to the question of free will is who has it, if anyone. > [@](#): > > Just because someone decided how I would choose does not mean that I am not the one carrying out the act of choosing. I am, and it is most certainly my choice, because I made it. Bull. If you know it’s not your choice, it’s not your choice. If you don’t know one way or the other, then it’s possible you’re being deceived. > [@](#): > > A choice is being made in the regular sense of the word choice, but there’s no “one” making the choice. There’s no entity present. > > > [@](#): > > > > Why not? There is an entity. It can recognize a number of different options. It can then choose among them, using whatever criteria it has concerning those sorts of choices. How is this different than what we do when we make a choice? I’m not saying that there might not be a difference: but if you think there is, WHAT IS IT? The difference is the automaton doesn’t “know” it’s making a choice, that IT is something that makes choices. It’s not ‘self’ aware. Plus you don’t know if you make choices or if things just happen. For all I know the actions that are called ‘me’ are no different then the actions of a volcano. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/25 "2003-11-05T04:54:55Z")
> [@](#): > > My point was the ‘me’ cannot be taken for granted, other wise it’s trivial. Prerequisite to the question of free will is who has it, if anyone. You have yet to explain what “it” is, so how can we go about determining who has “it” and who doesn’t? Do you have a crunkle fisted snorklax in your pocket? > [@](#): > > Bull. > > If you know it’s not your choice, it’s not your choice. Is there an argument here, or is this bold assertion week? If it is a choice that I came to, using whatever deciding compents that “I” have, then what does it matter that those components are set up in one particular way or another? No matter what, they have to be set up in SOME way, and the fact that someone thoughtfully set them vs. them just being that way by chance has no bearing on whether or not it’s “my” choice. If you want to argue the point further, you MUST be willing to defend some theory of what making a choice actually involves, in a programatic way. > [@](#): > > The difference is the automaton doesn’t “know” it’s making a choice, that IT is something that makes choices. It’s not ‘self’ aware. How would you know this? And what does it matter? Let’s say that I’ve made an automaton of sufficient complexity that it is aware of itself? So what? What does that change? > [@](#): > > Plus you don’t know if you make choices or if things just happen. For all I know the actions that are called ‘me’ are no different then the actions of a volcano. And yet, either way, they are certianly “your” choices, unless you are willing to deny that there is any such thing as “you” at all. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/26 "2003-11-05T06:35:39Z")
Apos > [@](#): > > You have yet to explain what “it” is, so how can we go about determining who has “it” and who doesn’t? “it” is yet to be defnied, but more fundamental is defnining, “ I” or “ self” or whatever owns or relates to this “ it “ > [@](#): > > If you know it’s not your choice, it’s not your choice. > > > [@](#): > > > > If it is a choice that I came to, using whatever deciding compents that “I” have, then what does it matter that those components are set up in one particular way or another? > > First you have to say what you mean by “ I “. > > > [@](#): > > > > If you want to argue the point further, you MUST be willing to defend some theory of what making a choice actually involves, in a programatic way. Yes, it gets down to. What is a choice? > [@](#): > > The difference is the automaton doesn’t “know” it’s making a choice, that IT is something that makes choices. It’s not ‘self’ aware. > > > [@](#): > > > > How would you know this? And what does it matter? Let’s say that I’ve made an automaton of sufficient complexity that it is aware of itself? So what? What does that change? We don’t know whether it’s self aware anymore then we know other human are self aware, but we can make a reasonable guess. A toaster isn’t self aware in the ususal sense of the word. Sans self awareness, the automaton doesn’t know it’s an automaton, in fact it does ‘know’ anything. It is only an aware observer that can determine whether or not it did anything. Left alone in a room it cannot be said to make any choices or done anything for there is no one there for its actions have meaning to. Like humans it’s dependent on being observed for its existence, but cannot provide that observation its ‘self’, for there is no ‘self’. The difference is you wouldn’t know any differnce, it’s like being nothing. For the autonmaton there is no “my” choice. > [@](#): > > Plus you don’t know if you make choices or if things just happen. For all I know the actions that are called ‘me’ are no different then the actions of a volcano. > > > [@](#): > > > > And yet, either way, they are certianly “your” choices, unless you are willing to deny that there is any such thing as “you” at all. Well that’s the question isn’t it? For the automaiiiton there is no “you”, me, them, they, us, I or whatever. According to the automaton there is no ‘me’, there is no “according to the automaton. There is no “ it “ to have, own, possess etc. a choice. The differnece awareness makes is that something exists. No awareness no difference. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/27 "2003-11-05T07:54:55Z")
Okay, for all you “there is no free will” people out there, I have an experiment for you. Tomorrow, I want you to buy a quick-pick lottery ticket, where the machine picks the numbers for you. After you purchase it, I want you to tear it up and throw it away in the store. If there is no obvious garbage can, ask the clerk to throw it out for you. You must do this without looking at the numbers you are given, so that you will not be able to then repurchase the same ticket. This is an act that is highly abnormal, and not a learned pattern response behavior. It will require you to make an active choice, because the desire to hang on to a lottery ticket and see if it wins is fairly strong. If you cannot do it, then you do not have free will. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/28 "2003-11-05T09:19:31Z")
What would that prove, **Ellis**? Those who followed your instructions would be following your instructions. Those who didn’t wouldn’t. Some people are more prone to suggestion than others. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/29 "2003-11-05T12:47:46Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Ellis Dee \* obvious garbage can, ask the clerk to throw it out for you. You must do this without looking at the numbers you are given, so that you will not be able to then repurchase the same ticket. If you cannot do it, then you do not have free will. [QUOTE] If anybody does what you tell them to, they have no free will. Instead, they are still automata, merely following the instructions of others. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/30 "2003-11-05T15:16:48Z")
Oddly enough, that’s essentially what I did about two years ago, on the same situation. Helped that we were hanging outside the 7-11. I’m willing to believe that, insofar as our actions and reflexes, we are highly culturally conditioned, excepting that some of us have more switching options than others. You train your mind, you think more and more widely. Go fig. Where’s the surprise? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/31 "2003-11-05T15:27:29Z")
It doesn’t matter if we live within a deterministic universe or not, at least from any possible perspective within the universe. Either way, our models of the universe will be necessarily incomplete, and as a result, our predictions will have an irreducible uncertainty to them. There’s no way we can ever know whether a given event was deterministic or nondeterministic. This means that God can’t know the future perfectly either. Unless He’s not part of the universe, in which case He doesn’t exist, in which case it doesn’t matter. Have a nice day. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/32 "2003-11-05T18:48:01Z")
> [@](#): > > What would that prove, Ellis? Those who followed your instructions would be following your instructions. Those who didn’t wouldn’t. Some people are more prone to suggestion than others. QED. Actually, no. Assuming one thinks about it and makes the choice in full knowledge o the consequences, one could only be making a choice. No matter what you do, you are either electing to follow Ellis’s idea or electing to read the ticket; or simply giving it to someone else. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/33 "2003-11-06T00:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*It doesn’t matter if we live within a deterministic universe or not, at least from any possible perspective within the universe. Either way, our models of the universe will be necessarily incomplete, and as a result, our predictions will have an irreducible uncertainty to them. There’s no way we can ever know whether a given event was deterministic or nondeterministic. > > This means that God can’t know the future perfectly either. Unless He’s not part of the universe, in which case He doesn’t exist, in which case it doesn’t matter. > > Have a nice day. \*\* Let me guess,…because of _Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem_? Is there no cause on the altar of which you won’t shamelessly sacrifice this dessicated morsel of esoterica? \ ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/34 "2003-11-06T04:31:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Sans self awareness, the automaton doesn’t know it’s an automaton, in fact it does ‘know’ anything. I can know whatever it is designed to know. It can know as much about itself and it’s values and the implications of its actions as we do. > [@](#): > > The differnece awareness makes is that something exists. No awareness no difference. I don’t understand what you are saying? Are you sure you do? I can’t see what awareness has to do with anything. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/35 "2003-11-06T04:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Okay, for all you “there is no free will” people out there, I have an experiment for you. What about us “free will is an unintelligible concept” people? I don’t understand the point of your experiment. What does it demonstrate, and how? ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/36 "2003-11-06T06:18:53Z")
Apos > [@](#): > > I can know whatever it is designed to know. It can know as much about itself and it’s values and the implications of its actions as we do. That’s not the point. You were arguing that the automaton would be making a choice, not that you can know what its actions are. If the automaton is not self aware it doesn’t know it’s choosing, it doesn’t know anything. Hence, “making a choice” doesn’t exist for the automaton. > [@](#): > > The differnece awareness makes is that something exists. No awareness no difference. > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t understand what you are saying? Are you sure you do? I can’t see what awareness has to do with anything. I am saying without awareness nothing is known to exist. The automaton has NO experiences. As Thomas Nagel as said, “consciousness is what it’s like to be something” Here’s an interesting essay of Nagel’s, [What is it like to be a bat?](http://www.silcom.com/~teragram/bat.html) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/37 "2003-11-06T09:19:50Z")
**bandit** Actually, no. Assuming one thinks about it and makes the choice in full knowledge o the consequences, one could only be making a choice. [/quote] Actually, yes. You are [backwards](http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/New/Time_Flies/Time_Flies.htm) reasoning. You _actually do_ something or don’t, and then reason that you made a “choice”. This later element is unnecessary in explaining the phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![Planet\_of\_the\_Shapes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b77776/32.png) [@Planet\_of\_the\_Shapes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Planet_of_the_Shapes)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/38 "2003-11-06T16:59:16Z")
My opinion is similar to Apos i think. Unless i am misunderstanding him anyway! Free will is a meaningless concept. Not only because the concept is nebulous and difficult to define. But also because there is no possible way to tell if something has free will. If it is not possible to detect something then it has no effect on our reality. If it has no effect on our reality then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/39 "2003-11-06T17:14:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > If the automaton is not self aware it doesn’t know it’s choosing, it doesn’t know anything. Hence, “making a choice” doesn’t exist for the automaton. what do you mean by self-aware? what is this self you are aware of? and why are you aware of it when you’re so sure the automaton can’t be? does the thermostat not choose to turn off the heat when it realizes the temperature in the room is too warm? if not, why not? your definition of “choice” (though i’m not entirely sure what it is–perhaps you could clarify) seems fairly arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939/40 "2003-11-06T17:35:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Great Unwashed \* > \*\*Let me guess,…because of _Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem_? \*\* No, actually, it’s the other way around: Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem because no map can describe the territory. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predestination-and-freewill/210939.md?page=3)